tv [untitled] December 24, 2012 9:30pm-10:00pm EST
russia's foreign minister thank you very much for being with r.t. today my pleasure now you're ending your ear with a visit to india russia has been clear in its support for india's aspirations to become a permanent member of un security council how do you think the much criticized u.n. security council will benefit from india's participation. first of all i would say that criticism is not always warranted the latest wave of criticism was related to the fact that the security council allegedly cannot act on syria. by these by the desire to see some action on the part of the security council. critics wanted to pass a resolution under chapter seven which provides for the use of sanctions and the use of force eventually and russia and china are convinced hundred percent that
this would be a disaster and that this would be the beginning of a very slippery slope and will bring us to the libyans in the area which we cannot afford anymore and the region cannot afford the security council was once expended only in the category of nonpermanent members and now. after several decades of the council functioning in the unchanged composition there is a very strong movement towards expanding its membership to better reflect the. pluralism. unity and we are strongly in favor of this we are convinced that the developing countries. the third world countries like
the curative council and we would. of course create new permanent seats because this is the biggest split in the united nations russia is convinced that this type of division cannot be resolved by. the narrowest medical vote but there must be consensus searching it would be very unfortunate if the reform of the security council he was voted through because this would split the membership and those who. would vote against. an imposed reform in their eyes basically expanded security council would lose legitimacy not gain legitimacy and more legitimacy is what we all want and that's why the council should be more representative but in any case while we are working very
thoroughly to reach this general agreement on the reform we believe that india certainly deserves. to be to be permanent member of the security council like your said russia is permanently blocking attempts of some of your own security council members to pass a resolution for that would allow in a foreign intervention into syria but do you think a military action could still play take place going around the un like it happened in case of iraq. well not only in case of iraq but also in case of the former yugoslavia yes it is it is possible and you just cited one example there are some others but i also feel that those who would like to interfere in the syrian crisis they don't want to do this without some kind of legitimacy or at least i would some kind of and the action in the united nations
which could be used to justify this as being legitimate some people would like very much the internationalize this situation and to expand the violence beyond the syrian border or set them said being made to specially in cases when the refugees have to flee syria because of the disproportionate actions by the government forces but on the other side the opposition the armed groups of that position which are several which are not united on this single comment they also reason except the both methods absolutely contrary to international humanitarian law. they can cause the just. the staging terrorist attacks and that it's very disheartening that our western call digs in the security council start that they refuse. condemning terrorist attacks in syria saying that
yes there is ms bed but you must take into account the overall context of what is going on in syria and why people resort to terrorist attacks it's absolutely unacceptable and this logic we will might lead us if we follow this logic might lead us to a very dangerous situation not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world if. the west would begin to. qualify terrorist as. bad terrorist and acceptable terrorists. one more reason that arises time to time that could actually ok the foreign intervention in syria is possession of chemical weapons do you believe that syria will use chemical weapons or is this another pretext for invasion i don't believe syria would use
chemical weapons it would be political. suicide for the government if it if it does every time we hear rumors or pieces of information come to surface that the syrians are doing something with chemical weapons and we double check with ripple check we go directly to the government and we get all the time to get the very firm assurances that this is not going to be used on the any circumstances. in formation is which correlates with the information that mary can serve and the stand that the latest. reports about some movement of the chemical weapons were related to the. steps that they can by the government to concentrate the chemical stuff which has been dispersed. in various locations into two sites to make sure that that is absolutely
protected and it is also accept that by. everyone including our western colleagues the europeans and americans that the biggest threat. in this situation is. the probability that the rebels might take hold of chemical weapons and therefore when while recognizing these are now western friends say but still the responsibilities with the syrian government even the rebels they called it it's a very strange logic because at the same time. it was a very people encourage rebels not to negotiate with the government but to continue fighting and giving them arms money and moral and political support so it's a very controversial position. in general the logic of
those who say no negotiations with us it is really very controversial and very dangerous because well they're not justifying what the government is doing they have been making a lot of mistakes have been using force disproportionately the security forces clearly were. prepared to face the public. protests and the protests in the cities and in the villages they have been threatening you know to current foreign aggression not to keep law and order a civilized manner but their position is provoking the government as i said resorting to terrorist attacks taking hostages and also introducing into this conflict the stick there in their mansion which is very dangerous it is already reverberating in the muslim world. arab governments.
and the. ethnic and confessional sic their income position of syria is so complex that if. the campus is established there it was very great all over the region but coming back to the present situation if people who say no negotiations with us and if they believe that. he's departure in whatever form is number one priority then they must understand that for these geopolitical goal of theirs they would have to pay the price but the price in the lives of the serious of the syrian civilians our priority number one is not somebody who's head is the sation of violence and of the blood ship. and if they say that they want to save
syria and to save syrians then they should join us and should. leave the old those who are fighting inside syria to stop doing this and sit down to negotiate without any preconditions and the fate of us that must be decided by the syrian people not by the i would say they're. part of the syrian opposition. three. three. three. three. three. three. three broadcast quality video for your media project free media r.t.
a year ago convinced assad to step down then thinks would be different in syria well not in the business of for regime change and some of the. regional players were suggesting to us why don't you tell president to leave we will arrange for some safe haven for. my answer is very simple. if indeed those who suggested this to us have this in mind they should take a direct hit the president that's why shall they use us as postman. when the crisis that two thousand and eleven in august few months after the crisis started it was russia who suggest that. that the security council react and there was a statement adopted by consensus which contained all the right things that everyone must stop fighting and that the dialogue must begin then we supported the arab
league plan. indorsed the arab league observers to be sent to syria and the game worked very thoroughly was damascus to accept them. unfortunately their mission was aborted for no good reason it was aboard that exactly at the time in december two thousand and eleven they submitted their first report to the security council which was rather on the objective side and which was not putting all the blame on the government on but also describing the atrocities and mis wrongdoings by the by the opposition groups then the arab league aborted the mission and then the un observers were deployed and as the relative start that would be to be seen. not sustainable but still some signs of stabilization were brought to be as the un observers
then there was an upsurge of provocations in the areas where the un the service were working and the purpose was very obvious to us the purpose was to create a situation which would be unbearable for for them to continue and that was. achieved so they left as well and then of course in june last year in june this year. in june two thousand and twelve in geneva there was a action group initiated by kofi annan was very strong support because we for quite some time had been suggesting that the key i would cite the players meet and try to see whether they can reach a common approach to creating conditions. in which the syrian potus would be negotiating their own future without outside interference with managed to agree on
this on this sequence. stop fighting the point i'm to look at doors. let them negotiate the composition of the transitional governing organ this organ while keeping the state institutions should prepare for elections and should draft a new constitution. and we say fight this is consensus let's let's stick to it let's send this message very strongly. in sync and to all of those who are fate. worse than france who just signed this document said no this is not enough we have to have a security council chapter seven resolution and we have to have some addition to this scheme saying that us or this out but this is not what we agreed so. our tradition is when we negotiate something and when when we agree on something we
respect the agreement unfortunately those of our partners who negotiated with us in geneva probably have different habits and we still feel that the negative effect of this. so the geneva scheme is absolutely. actual today. me who was appointed to replace kofi annan and reiterated that it is the basis for his activities we are in favor of unifying that position and after the geneva meeting we have been insisting that all of those who have influence on the opposition groups should help unify it on the platform of the geneva communiqué and so we have been sending the same message to the government and to the opposition guys this is the basis do what the geneva communiqué suggests it's in your interest down and negotiate. but the meeting which indorsed the
syrian national coalition. and which was supported by the by the west and important regional players adopted also declaration which says that the main goal of the opposition is dismantling the toppling the regime and dismantling dismantling its institutions a direct directly opposite to what the geneva communiqué said i understand that no one is talking to their position regarding the need to be a bit more realistic and to regarding the need. positions which are basically ruining the country because the claimant have patrick miss out on turkish syrian border is that part of solution and why they really targeted that well first we understand of course the concern of turkey and of all other countries who are continuing to receive syrian refugees it's a burden. to any circumstances and of course the situation
is quite tense the opposition. in the region. the syrian region's border in turkey. it's quite active probably trying to trigger some. cross border activities and then. having the international community you know revolt against the border violations incidents happened and the cross border fire which took place several times. we mediately were raising this issue with the syrians and we believe that what they explain to us is credible this was not intentional be able to chase the opposition groups who were taking them and then fleeing. and we immediately suggested to the turks and the syrians that we might help to create
a direct communication line so that in real time they can check whenever an incident takes place. the syrians were regulatory. said that they do have their own channels of communication and then this issue of petraeus was raised we recognize the right for turkey to think about its own security and the right of turkey to use for this purpose the international arrangements which turkey has in that particular case nato membership. and we accepted this as a given. on the other hand the more military hardware you accumulate in one place. the more risk you have that this had a very one day would be used. as for the. purpose
of this deployment yes i read and hear that some experts believe that if it is intended to prevent any. syrian crossfire. then it could be positioned differently and as it is in the visits to be positioned some people say it is quite. useful to protect the. american radar which is part of the american missile defense system building quoting the threat from iran. if this is the case then it is even more risky i would say because this multiple purpose deployment. could create additional. temptations that about iran rather than syria
well that's what that's what some people say. the configuration as it is being presented in the media it. really looks like it could be used against their own you know syria is not the only issue between america and russia first think obama did when he got reelected is that he signed the so-called magnitsky law that would sanction russian citizens and some russian officials what does it tell you about the mistake if they russia u.s. relations with britain about might help but i don't think this was the first thing about one hundred first was reelected this was inevitable with. the senators some of the guardian and some other sense reduce this idea. it was clearly. to create catch twenty two for the administration because that ministration was moving the removal of jacksonville. amendment with the support of quite a number of people on the hill. and this was absolutely obvious that
americans want it because it was rushed obsession to w two. keeping jackson very it would be depriving the american companies of the benefits of. membership of the russian federation so they had to do this. anyway and then the republicans i think decided to have this trick and to hinge the jackson very. removal on magnitsky act which was at that moment i think most of it. down against president obama. because as for the russian citizens who have been included on that list and they haven't seen that it's still. not published.
if they want to prevent russian citizens they don't like the united states they can do it without their guardians without any show. if they want to freeze the assets of anyone they can do this just going to the court and presenting evidence. again without any show without any public relations. campaigns but they believe that one of the achievements as the ministration present that it's teachers for the last four years one of the achievements was the reset was the russian federation and they want to hit obama exactly. in this reset think. it's unfortunate because it makes. domestic politicking. dominating the international agenda and dominating. in the minds of many
almost every single issue is happening between russia and the united states and which is much much more. comprehensive and complex than just the human rights interpretation by the neck and senators well remember the off record conversation that obama and mediates had and obama promised to be more flexible right after elections but from what you're saying how how how much flexibility he really be or allow himself to be with this republican opposition in congress well i think that's the peculiarities of the american system and the congressman can freeze consideration of. very important issues just because the beef from his particular state is not being admitted to one can through another for the senate the reasons and. the issues of global importance
could be just frozen because of the. interest of one single state in the united states. and the interest having nothing to do with the substance of the issue in question. so sometimes these issues of huge importance like the you know the israeli palestinian conflict and the need to settle it being kept close the just for years and years. because of the peculiarity of the american electoral cycles we would prefer. to approach international issues on the basis of the. merit and on the basis of the crying need to do something to get a result looking back at the your domestic politicking interests scindia level russia's foreign minister thank you very much for this interview thank you.